Legal Research
Cases
Jovanovic v The Queen

Jovanovic v The Queen

Case [2015] ACTCA 29 19 June 2015

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Evidence

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Jovanovic v The Queen
Citation:	[2015] ACTCA 29
Hearing Date:	11 May 2015
DecisionDate:	19 June 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ, Burns and Wigney JJ
Decision:	Leave to appeal against conviction granted. Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	APPEAL – Leave to appeal – criminal law – appeal against conviction – conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory – further evidence – appeal against sentence – sentence manifestly excessive – intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 19 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 35 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 37E(2), 37N(3), 37O(2) Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 5400, 5405, 5000, 5500 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 27(1)
Cases Cited:	August v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 85 Balthazar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26 Ceissman v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 74 Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 161 DPP v Nguyen (2009) 23 VR 66 GZ v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 11 Hillier v The Queen (2008) 1 ACTLR 235 Hinton v The Queen (2000) 115 A Crim R 74 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 lslam v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 10 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Mansaray v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 40 Matia v The Queen; The Queen v Matia [2015] NSWCCA 79 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 Miller v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 86 MLP v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 183 Munro v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 11 R v Abbott (2007) 170 A Crim R 306 R v Celep [1998] 4 VR 811 R v Jovanovic [2014] ACTSC 157 R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 2 R v WBA [2015] QCA 21 The State of Western Australia v Smith [2015] WASCA 87
Parties:	Miroslav Jovanovic (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Appellant) Mr J White SC (Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 22 of 2014
Decision under appeal:	Court: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Refshauge J Date of Decision: 28 February 2014 Case Title: R v Jovanovic Court File Number: SCC 90 of 2013
Decision under appeal:	Court: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Refshauge J Date of Decision: 12 May 2014 Case Title: R v Jovanovic Citation: [2014] ACTSC 157

THE COURT:

The Appeal

On 28 February 2014, a jury found the appellant guilty of the offence that on 7 April 2013 he intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm on the complainant, contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).

The maximum available penalty for such an offence is 20 years’ imprisonment.

On 12 May 2014, the primary judge sentenced the appellant to 10 years and nine months’ imprisonment from 7 April 2013 to 6 January 2024, with a non-parole period of five years and six…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jovanovic v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29
Case: [2015] ACTCA 29
Decision Date: 19 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a conviction for intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. The appellant, Jovanovic, sought leave to appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard by Murrell CJ, Burns and Wigney JJ.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory, particularly in light of further evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The Court granted leave to appeal against the conviction. However, after considering the arguments and the evidence, the Court ultimately dismissed the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. The Court found that the conviction was not unsafe or unsatisfactory, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal against conviction granted. Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29

Most Recent Citation

Law v Ilievski [2016] ACTSC 291

Cases citing this decision · 32 of 32 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Curtis-Hodge
[2025] ACTSC 415

…41; 262 CLR 428 DPP v JJ (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 74 DPP v Myers (a pseudonym) (No 5) [2024] ACTSC 109 DPP v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4 Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 R v Barron [2020] ACTSC 281 R v Bourne [2018] ACTSC 35 R v Chevalier [2018] ACTSC 236 R v Curtis (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 34 R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117 R v…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Eneliko; Director of Public Prosecutions v Crichton; Director of Public Prosecutions v Pauga; Director of Public Prosecutions v Ogden (a pseudonym)
[2025] ACTSC 306

…authorities: R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 24; R v Barron [2020] ACTSC 281; and R v Jovanovic [2014] ACTSC 157 ( Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29). Sentences in the range of ten years and nine months imprisonment, through to three years and six months imprisonment, for offenders that were not youthful, wer…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Atem
[2025] ACTSC 301 Para 1

…In Jovanavic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 the Court of Appeal found that a sentence of 10 years and nine months with a non-parole period of five years and six months was severe but not manifestly excessive. In that case the victim had been stabbed five or six times in the back.…
Tong v Tong
[2024] ACTCA 27

…rickell [1987] Ch 378 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 Leighton v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 55 National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] AC 686 Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd v Vandenbergh [2010] WASC 10; 4…
McCurley v Stirling
[2024] ACTSC 41 Para 5

…later repeated at [37] that a subsequent judicial officer has no power to reopen an existing sentence, citing Jovanovic v The Queen [1999] FCA 1008; 92 FLR 580 at [15] as authority, noting that there are statutory exceptions in Chapter 5 of the Sentencing Act , none of which applied in the circumstances of t…
Sampson v De Haan
[2016] ACTSC 327

…The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Greenwood v Barlee [2018] ACTSC 46 Jovanovic v The Queen [1999] FCA 1008; 92 FLR 580…
Chelsey (a pseudonym) v Goodwin (a pseudonym) (No 2)
[2022] ACTSC 364

…itchley v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria [2019] VSC 435 Farthing v Phipps [2010] NSWDC 317 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 Jovanovic v R [2015] ACTCA 29 N v N (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 48 R v Presser [1958] VR 45 TS v DT [2020] ACTCA 43…
Hurst-Meyers v Hoy
[2022] ACTCA 36

…1955) 93 CLR 453 Head v Evans [2020] ACTCA 26 Hillier v The Queen [2008] ACTCA 3; 1 ACTLR 235 Hoy v Hurst-Meyers (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 58 Jovanovic v R [2015] ACTCA 29 Nouri v Australian Capital Territory [2020] ACTCA 1 Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632 Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited (No 3) [2022] ACTCA 29 TS v DT [2020…
Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited (No 3); Ryan v Eastlake Football Club Limited (No 3); Ryan v Bhagria (No 3); Ryan v
[2022] ACTCA 29

…57.Principles referable to admission of further evidence on appeal were set out by the Court of Appeal in Jovanovic v R [2015] ACTCA 29, where their Honours observed: 21.Section 37N(3) of the [ Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)] provides that the Court of Appeal “may receive further evidence” by oral examination, affid…
Leeson v Grech
[2023] ACTSC 355

…Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Jovanovic v The Queen [1999] FCA 1008; 92 FLR 580 R v Gordon [2021] ACTSC 283 R v Vimahi; R v Grech (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 176 Taylor v R [2014] ACTCA 9 The Queen v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18…
ZA v Director-General, Community Services Directorate (No 4)
[2022] ACTCA 6

…57.Principles referable to admission of further evidence on appeal were set out by the Court of Appeal in Jovanovic v R [2015] ACTCA 29, where their Honours observed: 21.Section 37N(3) of the [ Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)] provides that the Court of Appeal “may receive further evidence” by oral examination, affid…
Collaery v The Queen (No 2)
[2021] ACTCA 28 Para 2

…ther evidence on the hearing of the appeal. The principles applicable to an application to lead further evidence were stated in Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29, at [22] to [23]: 22Ordinarily further evidence will not be admitted on an appeal if it was available, or could reasonably have been obtained at the…
Grey v The Queen
[2022] ACTCA 2 Para 21

…The Queen [2018] ACTCA 42 ( Hoyle ) (Murrell CJ, Burns, and North JJ) at [27]-[31]: Section 37N(3) of the SCA was discussed in Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 ( Jovanovic ) at [21], where the Court said: There is no statutory restriction on the receipt of further evidence, but the nature of appeals to the C…
NS v Hotchkis
[2021] ACTCA 13

…CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67; 197 CLR 172 Dong v Song [2018] ACTSC 82; 331 FLR 326 Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 NS v Hotchkis [2019] ACTSC 309; 14 ACTLR 251 R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677…
R v Walker (No 2)
[2021] ACTSC 46

…Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 R v Islam (Unreported, ACT Supreme Court, Mathews AJ, 25 May 2011). R v Kelly [2018] ACTSC 332; 87 MVR 127 R v Ophel [2019] ACTSC 325 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 R v Walker [2021] ACTSC 42…
R v Wright; R v Edgerton
[2021] ACTSC 12 Para 1

…In Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29, the offender stabbed the complainant five or six times to the side of the back in an attack at the bus interchange. The complainant suffered a punctured lung and severed intercostal artery. The offender had a criminal history, but there were no recent offences of violence.…
R v Barron
[2020] ACTSC 281 Para 1

…In Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29, the offender stabbed the complainant five or six times to the side of the back in an attack at a bus interchange. The complainant suffered a punctured lung and severed intercostal artery. The offender had a criminal history, but there were no recent violent offences. Follo…
TS v DT
[2020] ACTCA 43 Para 1

…Principles referable to admission of further evidence on appeal were set out by the Court of Appeal in Jovanovic v R [2015] ACTCA 29, where their Honours observed:…
Dhawan v Jamiel (Appeal)
[2020] ACAT 25 Para 2

…xation [2013] FCAFC 85 at [119] [13] Leighton v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 55 at [29] [14] Mulholland v Mitchell [1971] AC 666 [15] Jovanovic v R [2015] ACTCA 29 at [22] [16] August v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 85 at [119] [17] Jovanovic v R [2015] ACTCA 29 at [22]…
Nouri v Australian Capital Territory
[2020] ACTCA 1 Para 1

…33 (ACT), s 37N; Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 5606. The approach to the admission of further evidence is articulated in Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 at [22]-[23].…
Brudenall v The Owners - Units Plan No 202 (Appeal)
[2019] ACAT 96

…rk Investments Pty Ltd v Hegyesi [2019] NSWSC 425 Hillier v R [2008] ACTCA 3 ISPT Pty Ltd v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 43 Jovanovic v R [2015] ACTCA 29 Leighton v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 55 Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd v Coopers Brewery Ltd [2005] FCA 1812 Mansour v Dangar [2017] ACAT 49 Mulholland v…
Middleton v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2019] ACTCA 24 Para 1

…It was accepted that evidence available at the time of the sentence hearing would not ordinarily be admitted on appeal ( Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 ( Jovanovic )). However, fresh evidence can establish error ( Betts v R [2016] HCA 25; 258 CLR 420 ( Betts )) and the applicant referred to Bright v The Que…
Amer v Eriksson
[2019] ACAT 108

…v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 11 Giusida Pty Ltd v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2016] ACTSC 275 Hillier v R [2008] ACTCA Jovanovic v R [2015] ACTCA 29 Leighton v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 55 Murphy v Brown (1985) 1 NSWLR 131 Mulholland v Mitchell [1971] AC 666 Tehan v Saric [2010] VSC 175 Thomas v Powe…
R v Rappel
[2019] ACTCA 11 Para 54

…onfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80 ( Monfries ) at [20]-[23]; Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 at [54]-[60]; Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 at [41]-[44].…
Paul v Registrar, Domestic Animals Act 2000 (Appeal)
[2019] ACAT 38

…) [2016] NSWCA 292 Chong & Neale v CC Containers Pty Limited & Ors [2015] VSCA 137 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22 Hillier v R [2008] ACTCA 3 Jovanovic v R [2015] ACTCA 29 Lau v Registrar, Domestic Animals Act 2000 [2018] ACAT 119 Leighton v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 55 Mansour v Dangar [2017] ACAT 49 Mulholland v Mitchell…
Henry v The Queen
[2019] ACTCA 5

…Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 Heard v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 6 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 Kumova v The Queen [2012] VSCA 212; 37 VR 53 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 2; 195 CLR 665 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Martin v…
Hoyle v The Queen
[2018] ACTCA 42 Para 1

…Section 37N(3) of the SCA was discussed in Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 ( Jovanovic ) at [21], where the Court said:…
Bright v The Queen
[2018] ACTCA 39

…to adduce further evidence on appeal as permitted by s 37N(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) were recently re‑stated in Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 in these terms: 22. Ordinarily, further evidence will not be admitted on an appeal if it was available, or could reasonably have been obtained at the t…
Leighton v The Queen
[2017] ACTCA 55 Para 1

…on to adduce further evidence on appeal as permitted by s 37N(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) were recently re-stated in Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 in these terms:…
Beniamini v Craig
[2017] ACTSC 30 Para 1

…Mr Beniamini referred to what had been said in Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 at [41], relying on the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in R v Abbott [2007] VSCA 32; 170 A Crim R 306 at 309; [14], namely that the ground of manifest excess will only succeed if it can be shown that no reasonable sente…
Law v Ilievski
[2016] ACTSC 291 Para 1

…y succeed “if it can be shown that no reasonable sentencing judge could have imposed such a sentence”. That was repeated in Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 at [41] . This followed what Maxwell P said in R v Abbott (2007) 170 A Crim R 306 at 309; [14].…
Singh v The Queen
[2015] ACTCA 65

…Prosecutions v Dowie [2009] VSCA 154 El-Waly v The Queen [2012] VSCA 184 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 MLP v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 183 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 Pavicevic v The Queen [2010] ACTCA 25 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 2…

View all 32 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 24 of 24 shown

Miller v R
[2015] NSWCCA 86 Para 1

…In Miller v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 86 at [59] Schmidt J observed:…
The State of Western Australia v Smith
[2015] WASCA 87 Para 1

…In The State of Western Australia v Smith [2015] WASCA 87 at [34] Martin CJ counselled:…
Matia v The Queen; R v Matia
[2015] NSWCCA 79

…CLR 499 lslam v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 10 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Mansaray v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 40 Matia v The Queen; The Queen v Matia [2015] NSWCCA 79 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 Miller v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 86 MLP v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 183 Munro v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 11 R v Ab…
Ceissman v R
[2015] NSWCCA 74 Para 1

…Similar observations were made by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in Ceissman v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 74 at [67]. In Mansaray v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 40 at [59], Hoeben CJ at CL (with whom Harrison and R A Hulme JJ agreed) said:…
Mansaray v R
[2015] NSWCCA 40 Para 1

…Similar observations were made by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in Ceissman v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 74 at [67]. In Mansaray v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 40 at [59], Hoeben CJ at CL (with whom Harrison and R A Hulme JJ agreed) said:…
GZ v The Queen
[2015] ACTCA 11 Para 1

…to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt: M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, recently applied in GZ v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 11 at [23] – [24]. In R v WBA [2015] QCA 21 at [3] Fraser JA (with whom Gotterson JA and Jackson J agreed) said that, where such an allegation is raised,…
R v WBA
[2015] QCA 21 Para 1

…e doubt of the appellant’s guilt: M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, recently applied in GZ v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 11 at [23] – [24]. In R v WBA [2015] QCA 21 at [3] Fraser JA (with whom Gotterson JA and Jackson J agreed) said that, where such an allegation is raised, it falls to the appellate court:…
MLP v R
[2014] NSWCCA 183 Para 1

…In MLP v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 183 at [46] Bellew J (with whom Macfarlan JA and Adamson J agreed) said:…
The Queen v Miroslav Jovanovic
[2014] ACTSC 157 Para 1

…l 2013 to 6 January 2024, with a non-parole period of five years and six months’ imprisonment, from 7 April 2013 to 6 October 2018: R v Jovanovic [2014] ACTSC 157.…
Munro v The Queen
[2014] ACTCA 11 Para 1

…The primary judge considered two relevant, comparable cases: lslam v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 10 and Munro v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 11. Each of those cases was objectively very serious. In each case, a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was imposed. But, as the primary judge noted, since the commission of the offe…
August v Commissioner of Taxation
[2013] FCAFC 85 Para 1

…similarly provides that when hearing an appeal, the Court may “in its discretion receive further evidence”. In August v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 85 at [116] the Court observed:…
Islam v The Queen
[2013] ACTCA 10 Para 1

…The primary judge considered two relevant, comparable cases: lslam v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 10 and Munro v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 11. Each of those cases was objectively very serious. In each case, a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was imposed. But, as the primary judge noted, since the commission of the offe…
Balthazaar v The Queen
[2012] ACTCA 26 Para 1

…of manifest excess will succeed only if it can be shown that no reasonable sentencing judge could have imposed such a sentence: Balthazar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26 at [61] applying R v Abbott (2007) 170 A Crim R 306 at [14].…
R v Meyboom
[2012] ACTCA 2 Para 1

…In R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 2 the applicant had been tried before a judge sitting alone. The applicant sought leave to cross appeal out of time. At [10], Refshauge J referred to Hinton v The Queen (2000) 115 A Crim R 74 at [21] – [23], where the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia observed that it was on…
DPP v Nguyen
[2010] VSCA 31 Para 1

…r of Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 161 and the Victorian Court of Appeal in R v Celep [1998] 4 VR 811 and DPP v Nguyen (2009) 23 VR 66. His Honour held that the finding of guilt by a judge in a trial by judge alone must entail the acceptance of the verdict by the court and thus a convi…
Hillier v The Queen
[2008] ACTCA 3 Para 1

…rdinarily, further evidence will not be admitted on an appeal if it was available, or could reasonably have been obtained at the time of the hearing: Hillier v The Queen (2008) 1 ACTLR 235 at [160]. Different considerations may apply where there is a question about whether an irregularity in the proceedings has prevented a p…
Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd
[2003] HCA 49 Para 1

…en (1996) 184 CLR 501, Hayne J (with whom Gleeson CJ and McHugh J agreed) in Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 161 and the Victorian Court of Appeal in R v Celep [1998] 4 VR 811 and DPP v Nguyen (2009) 23 VR 66. His Honour held that the finding of guilt by a judge i…
Hinton v The Queen
[2000] FCA 1019

…brador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 161 DPP v Nguyen (2009) 23 VR 66 GZ v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 11 Hillier v The Queen (2008) 1 ACTLR 235 Hinton v The Queen (2000) 115 A Crim R 74 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 lslam v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 10 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Mansaray v The Queen [2015] NSW…
Maxwell v The Queen
[1996] HCA 46 Para 1

…eaving the actual date of the conviction somewhat uncertain. His Honour referred to the observations of Dawson and McHugh JJ in Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501, Hayne J (with whom Gleeson CJ and McHugh J agreed) in Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 161 and th…
M v the Queen
[1994] HCA 63 Para 1

…regard to the benefits enjoyed by the jury, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt: M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, recently applied in GZ v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 11 at [23] – [24]. In R v WBA [2015] QCA 21 at [3] Fraser JA (with whom Gotterson JA and Jackson J agr…
Wollongong Corporation v Cowan
[1955] HCA 16

…levant at common law as enunciated in Orr v Holmes and Another [1948] HCA 16; (1948) 76 CLR 632 and Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan [1955] HCA 16; (1955) 93 CLR 435. That is not to say that the common law factors are not relevant, only that they are not the only relevant factors. In many cases…
Orr v Holmes
[1948] HCA 16

…discretion [to receive further evidence] the Court is not constrained by the factors relevant at common law as enunciated in Orr v Holmes and Another [1948] HCA 16; (1948) 76 CLR 632 and Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan [1955] HCA 16; (1955) 93 CLR 435. That is not to say that the common law fac…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40 Para 1

…In House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505 Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ said:…
House v The King
63 WN 176 Para 1

…In House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505 Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ said:…

Legislation cited in this decision · 6

Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT)
5000, 5400, 5405, 5500 5 mentions (from Para 1)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
37E(2), 37N(3), 37O(2) 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
35 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
19 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
27(1) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT)
1 mention